Mushrooms are having a moment. Once dismissed as mere ingredients or forest oddities, they’re now the stars of conversations everywhere—from health circles to science labs. This isn’t a fad but a fundamental shift in how we see and use these fungi. From wellness trends to business booms, mushrooms are popping up everywhere, proving they’re more than just a side dish.

Our list dives into these undeniable signs, covering the rise of online communities, the integration of mushrooms into wellness practices, and their economic impact. We also explore the shift in public sentiment, their emergence as a cultural phenomenon, and their coverage in mainstream media. Increased scientific research, legislative changes, and the rising popularity of microdosing highlight the broader acceptance of mushrooms. Finally, we look at how celebrity endorsements are further cementing mushrooms’ place in modern life. From every angle, it’s clear: Our relationship with mushrooms is changing, and it’s changing fast.

Related: 10 Experiences to Make You Feel Like an Adrenaline Junkie

10 Online Communities and Education

Online communities dedicated to mushrooms have grown in popularity, with groups like the New York Mycological Society (NYMS) and numerous online forums facilitating the exchange of information and fostering enthusiasm among both amateur and experienced mycologists. This increased accessibility to knowledge has democratized the study of mushrooms.

Educational opportunities in mycology have expanded, with universities and independent organizations offering courses and workshops on various aspects of fungi, including foraging, cultivation, and medicinal applications. This has led to a broader interest in and understanding of the diverse roles that mushrooms play in nature and human society.

Social media influencers and content creators have contributed to this growing interest by sharing engaging content about mushrooms, inspiring wider curiosity and appreciation for these organisms. The increasing online presence of mushroom-related content reflects a growing fascination with and respect for mushrooms as a significant part of the natural world.^[1]

9 Integration into Wellness Practices

Mushrooms have gained traction in the wellness scene, with many people incorporating them into their health routines. People are increasingly interested in these fungi for their potential benefits, which some studies suggest may include boosting focus, enhancing immunity, and aiding in stress relief. Adaptogenic mushrooms like reishi, lion’s mane, and chaga are especially popular due to claims that they help the body adapt to stress and restore balance.

Mushroom supplements, powders, and teas are now widely available, making it easier to add these fungi to daily life. Some wellness enthusiasts report experiencing improved cognitive function, sleep quality, and reduced inflammation. This trend is not limited to alternative health circles; mainstream wellness brands are also incorporating mushrooms into their products, reflecting a broader interest in their potential health benefits.

The growing popularity of mushrooms in wellness practices indicates a growing interest in their potential benefits. While scientific research is ongoing and more evidence is needed to confirm their efficacy, the anecdotal evidence and increasing research attention suggest a growing curiosity and acceptance of mushrooms as potential tools for health and wellness.^[2]

8 Economic Impact

The mushroom industry is experiencing significant growth, creating economic opportunities in various sectors. The market for edible and medicinal mushrooms has expanded, driven by factors such as increasing consumer interest in health and wellness, technological advancements in cultivation, and a growing awareness of sustainability. Farmers are diversifying their crops to include gourmet and medicinal mushrooms, which can offer higher profit margins and open new revenue streams.

Both startups and established companies are capitalizing on this trend. Startups are focusing on innovative mushroom-based products like dietary supplements and novel food items, while established companies are exploring applications in sustainable materials like biodegradable packaging and leather alternatives. This surge in mushroom-related businesses contributes to job creation and economic growth, particularly in regions with favorable growing conditions.

This economic impact highlights the increasing recognition of mushrooms’ versatility and value. As consumer demand continues to rise and research uncovers new applications, the mushroom industry is poised to play a growing role in the global economy, with entrepreneurs and farmers at the forefront of this emerging market.^[3]

7 Public Sentiment Shift

Public sentiment toward mushrooms has undergone a remarkable transformation. Once viewed with suspicion or simply ignored, mushrooms are now embraced as symbols of sustainability and health. This shift is driven by increased awareness of their nutritional benefits, ecological importance, and potential therapeutic uses. People are more willing to experiment with mushrooms in their diets, seeking out varieties like shiitake, maitake, and oyster mushrooms for their unique flavors and health benefits.

This changing attitude is also reflected in the growing interest in foraging and cultivating mushrooms. Workshops, guided foraging tours, and urban mushroom farming initiatives are becoming more popular, highlighting a collective move toward reconnecting with nature and understanding our food sources. This shift in public sentiment underscores a broader trend of embracing natural and sustainable living practices, with mushrooms at the forefront of this movement.^4[]

6 Cultural Phenomenon

Mushrooms have become more than just a food trend; they’re now a cultural phenomenon. Grocery stores are stocked with diverse mushroom products, from gourmet varieties like lion’s mane and maitake to innovative items like chaga coffee and mushroom-infused chocolate bars. This surge in popularity is reflected in the significant increase in mushroom sales and their frequent appearance on food trend lists.

The fascination with mushrooms extends beyond the kitchen. Artistic expressions, fashion lines, and pop culture references celebrate these fungi, highlighting their aesthetic appeal and symbolic meanings. Festivals and events dedicated to mushrooms further showcase their growing cultural significance. This cultural embrace illustrates a broader societal shift towards appreciating and incorporating mushrooms into various aspects of life.^[5]

5 Mainstream Media Coverage

Mushrooms have captured the attention of mainstream media, solidifying their place in popular culture. Documentaries like Fantastic Fungi on Netflix have played a crucial role in educating the public about the fascinating world of fungi, showcasing their ecological importance and potential health benefits. These films have reached wide audiences, sparking curiosity and appreciation for mushrooms.

In addition to documentaries, mushrooms frequently appear in news articles, magazines, and cooking shows. Renowned chefs are incorporating exotic mushrooms into their dishes, highlighting their unique flavors and textures. This media exposure has contributed to the growing interest in mushrooms, making them a trendy topic in culinary and wellness circles.

The media’s portrayal of mushrooms as both a culinary delight and a health booster has significantly influenced public perception. As a result, mushrooms are no longer seen as obscure or niche; they are celebrated as versatile and valuable components of a healthy lifestyle. This mainstream coverage has undoubtedly helped elevate mushrooms to their current esteemed status.^[6]

4 Increased Scientific Research

The scientific community is diving deeper into the world of mushrooms, uncovering their impressive potential. Research into the medicinal properties of fungi is expanding, with studies highlighting the benefits of compounds like psilocybin for mental health treatments such as depression and PTSD. These findings are gradually changing the perception of mushrooms from mere food items to powerful therapeutic tools.

Beyond mental health, scientists are also exploring the nutritional and environmental benefits of mushrooms. Studies show they can boost immune function, reduce inflammation, and promote overall health. Additionally, mushrooms’ ability to decompose organic waste and improve soil quality is gaining attention, making them valuable for sustainable agriculture.

This surge in scientific research is shedding new light on mushrooms’ multifaceted roles. As more studies confirm their benefits, mushrooms are being recognized for their culinary uses and as crucial elements in health and sustainability. The growing body of evidence is reshaping how we understand and utilize these remarkable organisms.^[7]

3 Legislative Changes

Legislative changes are playing a significant role in altering the public perception of mushrooms. Recent years have seen a shift in policies, particularly concerning psilocybin, the psychoactive compound found in certain mushrooms. Cities like Denver and Oakland have decriminalized psilocybin, and Oregon has gone a step further by legalizing it for therapeutic use. These legislative moves reflect a growing recognition of the potential benefits of mushrooms for mental health.

The momentum for reform is not slowing down. Lawmakers in various states are considering bills to decriminalize or regulate the use of psilocybin and other psychedelic substances. This wave of legislative changes is driven by increasing scientific evidence and public support for alternative treatments for mental health conditions. The evolving legal landscape is paving the way for broader acceptance and research into the therapeutic uses of mushrooms.

These legislative changes are crucial in reshaping how society views mushrooms, moving them from the fringes of legality into more mainstream acceptance. As laws continue to evolve, they open new possibilities for research, therapy, and broader societal acceptance of mushrooms’ diverse benefits.^[8]

2 Rising Popularity of Microdosing

Microdosing, the practice of taking small, sub-hallucinogenic doses of psychedelic substances, is gaining traction, particularly with psilocybin mushrooms. People are turning to microdosing to enhance creativity, improve focus, and boost overall well-being. This trend is supported by anecdotal evidence and emerging scientific studies suggesting potential benefits for mental health. As more individuals explore microdosing, the conversation around its effects and benefits continues to grow.

The increasing popularity of microdosing is also reflected in the media and public discussions. Influencers and advocates share their positive experiences, helping to destigmatize the practice. Additionally, ongoing research and legislative changes are paving the way for broader acceptance and understanding of microdosing. This rising trend signifies a shift in how people perceive and utilize mushrooms, highlighting their potential beyond traditional uses.^[9]

1 Celebrity Endorsements

Celebrity endorsements are significantly boosting the popularity of mushrooms. High-profile figures are openly discussing their experiences with mushrooms, particularly psilocybin, for mental health and wellness. These endorsements help to destigmatize the use of mushrooms and bring them into mainstream conversations. When celebrities share their positive outcomes, it encourages their fans and the general public to explore the benefits of mushrooms.

The influence of celebrities extends to social media, where posts and videos about mushrooms reach millions of followers. This visibility has a powerful impact on public perception, making mushrooms more accessible and acceptable. As more celebrities advocate for the benefits of mushrooms, their acceptance and integration into wellness practices continue to grow, reflecting a significant shift in societal attitudes.^[10]

Finding the truth in our history is like trying to solve a crime after arriving at the scene 2,000 years too late. We analyze the evidence left behind, we listen to the witnesses, and we make our best guess—but we rarely know for sure what really happened.

There are few better examples of just how murky the truth can get than the Great Fire of Rome. We have a handful of stories and a few half-melted coins still buried in the ashes of old Rome, and we have to pick through them to find the truth.

It’s difficult to know who started the Great Fire of Rome and what fallout ensued. Every group had an interest in this story, and every version of it comes with a political agenda attached. There are a lot of different versions of the story, and no one knows for sure who was telling the truth.

10 Nero Started The Fire

According to Roman historian Cassius Dio, Nero had always wanted to see Rome burn. He claimed that Nero would say that a king who sees his country and throne destroyed together would be “wonderfully fortunate.”

“He secretly sent out men who pretended to be drunk,” Dio says, “and caused them at first to set fire to one or two or even several buildings.” The fire spread faster than anyone could deal with, and the people broke into a panic. “Here men while assisting their neighbors would learn that their own premises were afire; then others, before reached them that their own houses had caught fire, would be told that they were destroyed.”

Most of the early Roman historians agree with Dio. Pliny the Elder, who experienced the fire firsthand, called it “Emperor Nero’s conflagration,” and an unknown playwright, sometimes thought to be Nero’s advisor Seneca, wrote a play about Nero’s life, which depicts Nero promising that “the city’s buildings must fall to flames set by me.”

Suetonius, another Roman historian, takes it even further. He says that Nero didn’t even bother hiding that he was behind it. Nero just gave the excuse that he didn’t like “the ugliness of the old buildings” and openly burned the city down. He even brought out siege weapons, Suetonius says, and smashed down any buildings that wouldn’t burn.

9 It Was An Accident

“It seems unlikely that Nero would have started the great fire,” says historian Eric Varner. After all, “It destroyed his palace.”

The Roman historian Tacitus seems to have agreed. He claims that the fire started in a shop. “It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus.” From there, the fire got worse, spread on by a poorly designed city.

Some modern historians agree with Tacitus. One, Henry Hurst, claims that “as many as 100 minor fires broke out in Rome every day,” making it no stretch of the imagination to conceive that one of those fires might have gotten out of control.

This theory, though, starts with Tacitus—and he makes it clear that he isn’t fully convinced, himself. Whether the fire was “accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor,” Hurst concludes, “is uncertain.”

8 Christian Extremists Started The Fire

When the fire was over, Emperor Nero blamed the Christians. Most people believe that he was just using them as a scapegoat, but one historian, Gerhard Baudy, thinks Nero might have been telling the truth.

Before the fire, Baudy claims, Christians were passing around pamphlets promising that Rome would be reduced to ashes. “That is the constant theme: Rome must burn,” Baudy says. “This was the long-desired objective of all people who felt subjugated by Rome.”

Baudy can’t prove that pamphlets promising to burn Rome existed, but he thinks the idea fits the trend. He argues that there are Biblical verses, especially in Revelations, condemning Rome and promising destruction through fire, which show that this was a common theme in early Christian writing. He believes that a forgotten Christian prophet promised that July 19 would be the “day of the Lord,” timed to fit an ancient Egyptian prophecy that Rome would fall when the star Sirius rose into the sky—which happened on the day the fire started.

Baudy believes that the Christians knew the prophecy and started the fire, determined to make sure it came true.

7 It Was A Controlled Fire Meant To Build A New City

Archaeologist Andrea Carandini writes off every attempt to take the blame off Nero as historical revisionism. He says, “This rehabilitation—this process of a small group of historians trying to transform aristocrats into gentlemen—seems quite stupid to me.”

Carandini sides with a rumor that Tacitus mentions was going around Rome at the time: “Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name.” He points to the sheer level of destruction, believing Nero was burning the homes of the wealthy. “All these houses were destroyed, so the aristocracy didn’t have a proper place to live,” Carandini argues. “It’s the end, in a way, of the power of aristocracy in Rome.”

Nero is the one who benefited from it. “How could he build the Domus Aurea without the fire?” Carandini asks. “Whether or not he started the fire, he certainly profited from it.”

6 Nero Played The Lyre While Rome Burned

One of the most popular stories about the fire is that while Rome burned, Nero simply played his lyre and sang. Cassius Dio gives the most detailed version of the story. While the city burned, he says, “Nero ascended to the roof of the palace, from which there was the best general view of the greater part of the conflagration, and assuming the lyre-player’s garb, he sang the ‘Capture of Troy,’ as he styled the song himself, though to the enemies of the spectators it was the Capture of Rome.”

Suetonius backs him up, although he changes a few little details. He puts Nero on a tower on a different hill, and he has him singing the “Sack of Ilium” instead.

Enough modern historians have disputed the lyre story that it tends to show up in articles about historical misconceptions, but the account shows up in every single early version of the story of the fire. That doesn’t necessarily prove it really happened—but it means that a lot of Romans were willing to believe it did.

5 Nero Was Out Of Town And Sent A Relief Party

According to Tacitus, however, Nero couldn’t have played the lyre. He wasn’t even in Rome when the fire happened. He was at Antium, Tacitus claims, and rushed to Rome as soon as he heard. By the time he’d made it, though, his palace—the place where Dio claims he played the lyre—had already been destroyed.

Afterward, Nero set up a relief effort. “To relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude,” Tacitus claims. “Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighboring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck.”

All his efforts to help his people, though, didn’t win him anyone’s love. According to Tacitus, the rumor that Nero had been playing the lyre while Rome burned had already spread. By the time he’d arrived, the people had already turned against him.

4 Nero’s Relief Party Just Started More Fires

Cassius Dio doesn’t agree that Nero was so helpful. Nero sent out relief parties, he says, but they didn’t help anybody. They just made the fire worse.

“Many [houses] were set on fire by the same men who came to lend assistance,” Dio claims. Nero’s men, he claims, ran through the town, setting buildings on fire. “The soldiers, including the night watch, having an eye to plunder, instead of putting out fires, kindled new ones.”

Tacitus actually backs up Dio’s claim that people were making the fires worse, but he isn’t as sure that Nero sent them. “No one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames,” he claims. Tacitus isn’t sure who sent them, but these men, he says, “kept shouting that there was one who gave them authority, either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.”

3 Nero Blamed It On The Christians

When the fire was over, Tacitus claims, Nero needed a scapegoat. Everyone was blaming the fire on him, and to deflect it, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.”

This, Tacitus says, was the beginning of the persecution of Christianity. “An arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty,” he says. “Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.”

Other Romans talk about the persecution of Christians, although they don’t specifically connect it to the fire like Tacitus does. Suetonius praises Nero for torturing them, writing, “Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”

Also, a letter still exists, written by Pliny the Younger to the Roman emperor Trajan, asking how he should deal with Christians. Should he punish every Christian, he asks, “even without offenses” or “only the offenses associated with the name?”

2 Christians Were Never Persecuted By Nero

Some modern historians, though, don’t believe that any of that really happened. One, Gordon Stein, thinks that Tacitus didn’t actually write the part about Christians being used as scapegoats. He believes it was added by later Christian writers.

“The term ‘Christian’ was not in common use in the first century,” Stein claims. The word choice in this passage, Stein believes, is out-of-character for both Tacitus and the time he was alive. “Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences.”

Instead, Stein claims it was pulled from another source. “It is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales.” Stein thinks that this passage was added hundreds of years after the Great Fire. “Copyists working in the Dark Ages,” he claims, “copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus.”

1 The Truth Is Unknowable

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote a short history of Nero, but he didn’t even touch on the Great Fire of Rome. “I omit any further discourse about these affairs,” Josephus wrote. The life of Nero, he felt, was too murky to be worth stepping into.

“There have been a great many who have composed the history of Nero,” he wrote, “some of which have departed from the truth of facts out of favour, as having received benefits from him; while others, out of hatred to him, and the great ill-will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him with their lies.”

The history of Nero, Josephus seems to believe, is so full of bias and lies that it’s impossible to tell the truth, and it’s no longer worth writing about. “These that have no regard for truth,” Josephus says, “they may write as they please.”

Beyond the stereotypes we have for the world, how do other countries see each other? Representing every continent but North America, here are 10 of the most interesting — ranked by mutual animosity.

10. Swedes — Norwegians

The Swedish see Norwegians as cheerful, open-minded, naive country bumpkins. They also think they’re beautiful and cute-sounding. It’s understandable, then, that Norwegians see the Swedish as condescending, as well as arrogant and uptight. Both see the other as stupid. For example, the Swedish-made “Norge muggen” is a mug with the handle on the inside because, so the joke goes, it was designed by someone from Norway. Ask a Norwegian about Swedish-made mugs, on the other hand, and they’ll tell you they “have a hole in the bottom for easier drinking.”

There’s been a long-standing rivalry between the two nations; Sweden actually ruled over Norway from 1814 until 1905 and almost went to war not to lose it. Then, when Norway struck oil in the 1960s, Sweden started falling behind. Now Swedes go to Norway looking for work as the wages are much higher than at home. Despite the negative stereotypes, relations between the countries are good. 

9. New Zealander — Australians

If Australia’s gutter press is anything to go by, “carping Kiwis” think Aussies are hostile. In a story headlined “If you don’t like it, leave”, Queensland’s Sunday Mail reported a mere 1% of immigrants from New Zealand thought Australians “caring, friendly, hospitable” people. If this comes as a surprise to the average Australian, it’s because Kiwis — and especially Kiwi immigrants — are privy to something they’re not: Australia’s hellish immigrant detention centers. Despite being the worst of their kind pretty much anywhere in the world — holding people for years at a time — they don’t get much coverage in Australia.

The average Australian likes having Kiwis around. And while they’re given to mocking the New Zealand “ecksent”, many Aussies find it quite sexy. Some Australians even pretend to be New Zealanders while traveling — similar to how Americans ashamed of their country wear a Canadian flag on their backpack. Aussies know how they’re seen, as loud and obnoxious, whereas Kiwis are peaceful and kind.

8. English — Welsh/Scottish/Irish

The Welsh have the most enduring, or most resurgent, dislike of the English — who they still see as arrogant and imperialist. For good reason too: the English are arrogant and imperialist, especially when it comes to the Welsh. For instance, while the English know better than to speak of “England and Scotland” as some kind of homogenous bloc, it’s common to speak of “England and Wales.” In fact, the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry for Wales used to just say “See England”. The English also stereotype the Welsh as simple, rustic, and stupid. 

Irish Anglophobia is mostly historical — and justified given the massacres. Today, however, what the Irish hate most about the English are Brexit, arrogance, and football hooliganism. They also hate English binge drinking and subsequent singing in the streets. Oh and they also think the English are rude, pompous, overweight, obsessed with soap operas, and constantly complaining. On the other hand, they do like English music and humor. Meanwhile, the English stereotype for an Irish person is a rustic, untrustworthy alcoholic.

Like the Irish and Welsh, the Scottish see the English as arrogant and imperialist. Anti-English sentiment is lower than it has been, but there’s a “lingering mistrust” of the English said to arise from a Scottish inferiority complex. As for the English view of the Scottish, it comes from the same kind of place: a sense of inferiority. In this case, though, it’s not economic; it’s a kind of deep-seated uneasiness about the rough, wild power of a Scotsman, even if he is let down in the English imagination by a penchant for deep-fried chocolate bars, coagulated pigs’ blood, and heroin.

7. Nigerians — South Africans

The citizens of Africa’s two main economic powers are even fiercer rivals than their rulers. While the leaders tend to cooperate and work toward better relations, the people are constantly sniping.

Whether in sport, culture, or business, Nigerians see South Africans as their only real competitors on the continent. They also see them as entitled and lazy. In 2019, for example, they strongly condemned xenophobic “theytookourjerbs” style attacks on the streets of Johannesburg in which South Africans attacked economic migrants. On social media, radio shows, and TV, Nigerians argued that South Africans had to work harder if they didn’t want to lose out to others.

South Africans, meanwhile, often see Nigerians as criminals — “drug lords, human traffickers and online scammers.” This is in addition to resenting wealthy US- or UK-educated Nigerians for “stealing” the best paid jobs in South Africa. The more xenophobic South Africans think educated Nigerians are better off contributing to their own country’s economy. Interestingly, Kenyans see Nigerians in a similar way, as coming to their country to “take their women and their businesses”, but they’re much less violent in response.

6. South Koreans — North Koreans

South Koreans hardly think about their neighbors to the north. This might seem unusual given all the threats, but this in itself is the reason. South Koreans have become desensitized to nuclear belligerence. Unfortunately, they’re also desentized to the oppression of North Koreans themselves, which is why defectors to the south find it hard to integrate. This isn’t to say South Koreans don’t like North Koreans, though, only that they don’t understand them. This is especially true of the young, who, despite their liberal social views, are conservative on border security. In 2013, only 5.4% of South Koreans in their twenties felt North Koreans even shared their ethnicity.

Meanwhile, North Koreans’ image of their South Korean neighbors is intentionally distorted by the media. Anything with the slightest southern whiff is officially denounced, such as the South Korean slang term for ‘boyfriend’, oppa, which in Kim Jong-un’s North is forbidden. K-pop is also banned, of course, as are public displays of affection and anything else of “foreign influence,” such as certain hairstyles and ways of speaking. Young people are urged to be “faithful to the calling of their country,” which, while it’s notoriously difficult to survey North Koreans, suggests they look up to the southerners. It also suggests they have access to forbidden materials in spite of the penalties.

5. Arabs — Persians (Iranians)

It’s such an insult to mistake a Persian for an Arab that there’s a website explaining the difference: PersiansAreNotArabs.com. According to Iranian academic Sadek Zibakalam, “the majority of Iranians of all types [uneducated and educated alike] hate Arabs.” Apparently, Persians “will never forget their defeat [by] the Arabs in the Battle of Qadisiya 1,400 years ago.” It is for this reason, he says, that Iranian officials talk so much trash about their neighbors — saying, for example, that “if Iranians just blow some air across the Persian Gulf, they would wipe the UAE [United Arab Emirates] off the map.” And when the UAE disputed Iran’s claim to some islands in the Persian Gulf (also known as the Arabian Gulf), Iranians rallied outside their embassy holding cakes with 35 candles to mock their measly 35-year history, compared to Iran’s 2,500.

However, Arabs weren’t always divided into nations and as a people they’re proud of their heritage — which, by the way, dates back at least as far as the Persians’. So while Iranians see Arabs as the descendants of nomads, uncultured barbarians who sacked the Persian cities, Arabs see Iranians as descendants of fire-worshiping infidels, lost souls until Muhammad came along. According to the US State Department, Arabs still see them as “heretics” today, as well as “liars” and “snakes”.

Needless to say, this is a sweeping generalization of views on both sides. There are some interesting nuances. For example, Iranians get on considerably better with Qataris and Omanis than Saudia Arabians. Within the Arab world too, there’s a lot of variation, with Egyptians (for example) asserting their own ancient culture alongside that of the Arabs.

4. Ukrainians — Russians

Despite appearances, Ukrainians actually quite like the Russian people. It’s the government they have a problem with, specifically Putin’s erasure of their national identity through his talk of the two as “one people”. Throughout the present conflict, Ukrainian views of the Russians have remained surprisingly positive — just as they have in the past at times of heightened tension with Russia (such as Russia’s invasion of Georgia and various disputes over gas). How positive depends on the region. Western Ukrainians like the Russians the most, but a majority of easterners (however slim) still hold a favorable view.

Russians, meanwhile, are generally more swayed by propaganda. The same gas disputes mentioned above, for example, increased Russian hatred of Ukrainians. They see their neighbors as a non-country with no real culture of their own. Ukrainians are khokhly — rustic, provincial, criminal, and drunk every day. For Russians, the stereotypical image of a Ukrainian is Svirid Holokhvastov, the main character in a play called Chasing Two Hares: a “cunning and hypocritical pseudo-intellectual”. 

3. Brazilians — Paraguayans

Everyone in South America loves the Brazilians — everyone except the Paraguayans. Regardless of demographics, Paraguayans think Brazilians are imperialist. Despite Brazil’s supposed policy of non-intervention in other countries’ affairs, Paraguayans suspect them of massively defrauding Paraguay for centuries, all the way back to Portuguese colonists’ aggressive expansion. Worse still was the Triple Alliance War of 1864-1870, in which Brazil ganged up with Argentina and Uruguay to invade. This led to the militarisation of all Paraguayans, including women and children, and the deaths of 60%, including 90+% of the men. They also lost 25% of their land, including the Mato Grosso. Brazil continued to occupy Paraguay for a further six years, then dictated its politics until it gained independence. More recently, economic differences have, since the 1960s, seen an influx of Brazilian immigrants or brasiguayos buying up cheap land in Paraguay and displacing the native Paraguayans.

Brazilians, meanwhile, see Brazil as “benign” — especially compared to the other BRIC states Russia, India, and China, all of whom antagonize their neighbors. Brasiguayos in particular think the Paraguayan peasants are a senseless and irrational mob. “It is a waste of time using diplomatic means to deal with the landless,” said the richest brasiguayo back in 2012, “they should be treated like a bad woman, with a stick.”

2. Indians — Pakistanis

According to Pew Research, most Indians, regardless of demographics, see Pakistan as a threat. Apparently, the 1947 Partition of India, by which Pakistan came about, did nothing to settle their differences. In fact, it compounded them; the contested Kashmir region where the two countries meet could be a flashpoint for nuclear war. Of all the regional threats that India faces (including Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Naxalites, and China), Pakistan is considered the greatest.

Likewise, of all the threats that Pakistan faces (including the Taliban and al Qaeda), India is considered the greatest. Pakistanis, however, are eager to improve their relations — if not between governments then between the people themselves. Hence, Indians visiting Pakistan, “India’s estranged midnight twin,” are surprised by the “outpouring of warmth and generosity” from people who seem “‘just like [Indians] but still the perpetual ‘other’”. Sadly this warmth is not often shown to Pakistanis arriving in India.

1. Chinese — Japanese

According to China’s cross-sectionally representative Social Attitude Questionnaire of Urban and Rural Residents, “the dominant emotion toward Japan … is contempt.” It’s even stronger for the people themselves and it isn’t really hard to see why. Exposure to anti-Japanese sentiment starts early for Chinese children. They learn about Japanese war crimes in school, see Japanese “sadists” in movies, and hear them casually referred to as “devils” by parents and grandparents. 

But it swings both ways. Just as only 8% of Chinese have a favorable view of the Japanese, only 7% of Japanese have a favorable view of the Chinese. Most Japanese see the Chinese as loud and unruly — as well as dirty, incapable of flushing the toilet. As in China, impressions largely come from the media; direct contact between the people is actually surprisingly rare. In one survey, only 3.5% of Japanese had talked to a Chinese person, and only 1.5% had ever visited China.

Little wonder then that China and Japan get the number one spot on this list.

We all grow up with an idea of what romantic love is supposed to be, though it’s usually not long before we discover that we’re wrong. Needless to say, this can contribute to problems in our relationships. The role of popular fiction – especially cinema – in shaping those beliefs remains largely undiscussed, too. Here are 10 ways movies skew our beliefs on love…

10. Deliberately Feigning Interest Or Teasing Doesn’t Work

The idea that teasing and outright ignoring someone is a viable form of expressing love is ingrained in Hollywood, and could be seen in everything from teenage dramas to big-budget superhero movies. It also shows up in real life, as so many people think that someone not being responsive to their advances is just asking them to try harder, though usually to little success.

As you’d have guessed, that’s not how it works in reality, and even science agrees with us. Many studies prove that people tend to be attracted towards someone who likes them over someone who doesn’t. Of course, it’s a different story altogether if their signals are ambiguous, though as long as it’s clear that they’re not interested – which is usually the case in the movies – chances are good that they really do mean what they’re saying.

9. The Story Doesn’t End When They Get Together

This one isn’t just restricted to romantic movies, as many other works end with some primary characters ultimately getting together. They go through their own arcs, find out that they’re fit for each other and usually spend their whole lives in the mythical period of ‘happily ever after’.

As anyone who has been in a long-term relationship or marriage would tell you, if movies really wanted to accurately portray a real-life couple’s story, they’d start with them getting together instead. For any couple – unless their histories are exceptionally exciting – the part before the relationship is hardly ever significant. The truly exciting and eventful parts of a relationship come after, not before. Movies, though, still treat getting two people together as some kind of a victory and cue to end their stories, when in reality that’s only the beginning.

8. You Don’t Have To Suffer And Sacrifice To Make It Work

Whenever something goes wrong in a relationship in a movie, it’s shown as a rite of passage, one from which everyone eventually comes out stronger. It’s also supposed to be a pretty normal part of life, as the idea that you’ve to give something up to make a relationship work is quite prevalent in movies. Jack’s sacrifice for Rose in Titanic, as an example, has been immortalized in popular imagination. It’s not important that he could have probably been saved if Rose tried even a bit more than she did, but that he gave up his life for the one he loved. Sacrifice supersedes logic, at least when it comes to love in the movies.

In reality, any relationship that consistently requires you to give something up is not a healthy relationship at all, least of all a requisite for keeping the bond strong. Two people getting together is hardly ever supposed to be ‘sacrifice’, as movies and television have now come to romanticize. Functioning relationships don’t work on a transactional, give-sacrifice-gain-love logic.

We’re not saying that making any sacrifice is bad – as that’s a selfish thing to say – though it’s hardly the norm in a relationship. It’s probably due to this one that quite a few people continue to hold on to dead-end relationships in reality, hoping that the movies are right about this stuff. Unfortunately, they aren’t.

7. Studies Prove A Link Between Movies And Relationship Problems

We’ve always suspected that Hollywood has something to do with how we perceive – or more accurately misperceive – love. The fairytale idea of love as promoted by Hollywood still causes problems in relationships around the world. Thanks to movies, we think of a perfect romantic partner as someone who stays with us because they were made for us, and not because they work every day to make it work. That’s just one of the many misconceptions about love movies still actively promote, and it’s not just us saying it, either.

A study done by a group of counsellors confirms that inaccurate portrayals of relationships in Hollywood have a profound impact on real-life relationships. They found that problematic ideas like ‘if they care about you, they’ll know without talking about it’ are actively promoted by a majority of romantic comedies released between 1995-2005, leading to problems in relationships around that time and later.

6. Women In Movies Are Just Weird During Sex

For most teenagers, movies are their first introduction to the marvelous-yet-confusing world of sex. Conversely, it’s also one of the bestselling themes in Hollywood, and continues to shape up how sex is viewed in the real world. Our perception of sex mostly come from movies, which is fine as someone has to tell the kids. Of course, movies have a responsibility to get it right for the impressionable minds, too, which is why sex is still a heavily-censored subject in movies.

While they largely succeed in that purpose when it comes to men, sex for women in movies is a seemingly weird and unnatural affair; one that’s not rooted in reality at all. Most things about how movies portray women having sex are wrong. No woman has ever wrapped herself in the bedsheet to go to the washroom after sex in real life, but it’s a thing they do in movies all the time. Women in movies also apparently love wearing a bra, as they always have one on before and after the act. It makes sense if they have to go out or get back to work after it, though women generally don’t favor wearing a bra to sleep if they can help it, as it can get uncomfortable. Movies also don’t understand the female orgasm, as women in movies are done much faster than their real-life counterparts (an average orgasm in reality takes around 15 minutes).

5. According To Science, Opposites Don’t Attract

The notion that people with opposing interests are suited for each other is ingrained in our society, though squarely blaming movies for it would be a bit unfair. While it’s true that the trope shows up in Hollywood in more places than we can count, it has been a recurring theme in our stories for far longer than that, Pride and Prejudice being a great example of it. It’s an almost certainty that if a man and a woman start off fighting – or being at odds about something – in a movie, they’d end up together, or at least romantically involved in some way.

Most people would have already realized in their dating lives that it’s not the case in real life. Romantic relationships usually develop on the basis of similarities, not differences as that would go against all evolutionary sense. Science agrees, too, as studies have found that people tend to be attracted towards those who think like them. This also means that while approaching someone, focusing on what makes you unique may not work as well as talking about your similarities.

4. Running Through An Airport Will Get You Shot

It seems like this one would be obvious, but we figured it’s a good idea to reiterate just how bad an idea doing something like this is. Airports in movies form the backdrop of all kinds of romantic endeavors – from confessing unrequited love to marriage proposals. Most of them end up successful, too, and some people may even consider it to be romantic in real life.

As you’d know, frantically running through airports to catch a lover will prove to be fatal in most – if not all – countries. This is especially true in America, where security at airports has been the highest since 9/11. The various security teams at a regular airport are specifically trained to not let anyone run across without the necessary paperwork and checks, no matter how much they love the other person. Most of those romantic chases in movies would usually end up in the whole airport being put on high alert and the main guy being shot within two minutes.

3. ‘Love At First Sight’ Is Not Real

A lot of us believe in love at first sight. The idea that one day, you’d meet someone’s eyes for the first time and fall in love has been used to whip up emotions in movies for a long time. Mind you, it’s not the same as ‘when you know, you know’ as that still requires getting to know the other person. No, in movies, it’s entirely possible to decide to spend your life with someone the first time you see them at the coffee shop, and those relationships usually end up fine, too.

As you’d have guessed from the rest of this list, it’s completely unlike how it works in real life. Psychologists have done research on whether love at first sight is even possible, and more than one study has found that it isn’t. Interestingly, they made a distinction between lust and love, as even if it’s possible to be sexually attracted to someone within moments of meeting them, love requires the formation of connections in the brain that physically can’t be completed that fast.

2. Basically All Relationships In Movies Are Heterosexual

Whenever we refer to romantic love, we instantly think of a man and a woman. The prevalence of heterosexual relationships in Hollywood is overwhelming, even if not up to date with the times. While it’s true that more movies and TV shows are now exploring same-sex (and other type of) relationships than ever before, non-straight love in movies is still always used to make a point (or something the entire movie is based on, in many cases). Couples in movies are straight, and if they’re not, their gayness can’t just stay in the background. It almost never happens that a character is walking down the street in NYC and passes a gay couple just holding hands getting a hot dog in the back, even if you see straight couples doing that all the time. Moreover, gay couples only exist in adult, restricted-access movies in almost all countries. There have never been any gay Transformers.

If you live in a big city in a developed country, chances are that this is quite an inaccurate depiction of the types of sexual relationships found in our immediate social circles. The hot dog sight we mentioned earlier is actually a perfectly normal thing to witness in NYC, just ask someone from there! For the kind of progress our movies have made in other areas, Hollywood still sees romantic love to be confined within the binary of male and female.

1. ‘The One’

It’s not rare to find someone who’s single because they’re looking for their perfect soulmate. Entire relationships have been ruined because of our cultural belief in the idea that there’s someone out there who perfectly matches the idea of a perfect partner in our heads. People in happy, functioning relationships give it up because their partner doesn’t align with that idea, only to eventually – but inevitably – find out that soulmates only exist on the big screen.

For one, what someone does for you is much more important than their personality or general traits, and that keeps changing over time. You may find someone exactly like how you imagine your soulmate to be, though they can still – over time – turn out to be a horrible partner.

More importantly, the idea that someone is meant for you is inherently faulty in the first place. We’re not supposed to find our soulmate prize by travelling across the world and meeting as many potential contestants as we can. The purpose of finding a partner should be to make you happy right now, and if it does, it shouldn’t matter if someone better is out there (hint: there isn’t). This may seem ridiculous, but couples break up because one of them doesn’t fit the other’s idea of ‘the one’ all the time. Relationships require everyday work instead of a one-time ‘soulmate’ pass, as even the most matching soulmates won’t stay together for long if they don’t make that effort.